Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Blame the flower children. That seems to be the chief conclusion of a new report about the Roman Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. The study, undertaken by John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the request of America's Catholic bishops, links the spike in child abuse by priests in the 1960s and '70s to "the importance given to young people and popular culture" -- along with the emergence of the feminist movement, a "singles culture" and a growing acceptance of homosexuality. It also cites crime, drugs, an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce....

Well, if you believe that, then you must also believe that those '60s and '70s libertines had a time machine:

Audit Finds Sexual Abuse Was Topic Decades Ago

A regional province of the Capuchin religious order that had fought allegations of sexual abuse for decades decided last year to open its files dating to the 19th century to three independent auditors....

The auditors' report, released on Tuesday, found that sexual abuse by friars in the St. Joseph Province of the Capuchin Order was discussed at meetings as far back as 1932, the first year for which minutes of meetings were available....

The report also concludes that since the 1930s, when it says records were first available, the province rarely reported abuse to authorities, spent more money on hiring lawyers than on aid to victims, and routinely moved offenders between positions without divulging complaints against them....

Auditors also specifically reviewed the situation at the Milwaukee-area seminary, known as the St. Lawrence Seminary High School, one of the country's last remaining all-male boarding school seminaries....

According to the audit, 28 boys ... were abused or subjected to inappropriate sexual behavior at the seminary by eight friars dating back to 1964.

Summary and Examples of Reports Between 1932 and 1991
1932 to 1951: Provincial Council minutes reveal that at least 15 friars were reported between 1932 and 1951. At least four reports involved sexual abuse of minors....

1952 to 1956: There are no recorded reports between 1952 and 1955. In 1956, one friar was reported for sexual abuse of minor girls. This friar had been admonished for similar behavior while in formation yet was ordained anyway. He was reported for sexual abuse of minor girls several more times throughout the decade. The reports were made by the minor girls and their parents. Others, including a female police officer parishioner, reported their observations of the friar's inappropriate behavior with girls. He eventually left the order to marry.

1956 to 1960: There are 13 documented reports involving 13 different friars between 1956 and 1960. The documentation contains only summary information of these reports. Some reports were made by minors or others on their behalf, but it is unclear if all of these reports involved minors....

This happened before Plato's Retreat, before Woodstock, before Stonewall, before Haight-Ashbury, before the Beatles, before the Pill, before Elvis, before whatever the hell it is you typically blame if you're the kind of person who still rails against the sexual revolution. Nobody forced a joint into the mouths of those long-ago Capuchins and forcibly made them so crazy they couldn't control their animal lusts. They were pedophiles, plain and simple, long before pedophilia in the Church made the news, and their behavior was covered up. It wasn't the '60s' fault.

It's possible that the 60s atmosphere reduced the undeserved sense of shame among victims and encouraged them to come forward — that seems to be happening with women in the military right now — but, ah, yeah, the pedophile priests and choir masters and scout leaders and their ilk we have always had among us. Only sunshine will discourage them.

Feminism as well as the counterculture played a huge role in moving things from secrecy to the public eye. I'd also like to point out that a lot of good priests left the priesthood to get married in the 70's, leaving behind only the most sexually confused and authoritarian priests. Far from becoming a more acculturated/assimilated/open setting the Catholic Church attempted an opening to modernity and then retreated. As there were fewer men and women taking the vocation--because after birth control there were fewer huge families, after the fifties there were more ways to get your children educated and better jobs than Parish Priest, the number of priests and religious plummeted leaving a smaller and smaller pool of people who, basically, couldn't make it in the outside world.

aimai,I can understand how you as a "FEMINist" see the history through that Prism. However, your view doesn't explain paedophiles who weren't Catholic priests. Much less does it explain homosexuals in that church. Simply put paedophiles haven't disappeared or decreased they have simply moved their activities.

Sadly feminism is like Any special interest pleading...starts with the conclusion that suits the special interests and justifies it through that mind set. the key problem is that the argument becomes binary ( based on stereotyping) What it isn't is either scientific of or objective.

E.g. if what you claim it would universally true across ALL CULTURES it isn't! Much of sexual preference is cultural and biological. And I'm not talking about a 'gay gene' that would be 'infantile like' over simplification. I'm talking in terms the biological make up of instincts and how different cultures express or encourage displays of those instincts. Nature has no morality. Ergo 'morality' is societally 'cultural' orignating.

Let's be perfectly clear I'm NOT seeking or arguing that paedophilia is acceptable IN THIS CULTURE only that 'feminism' as an ideology isn't objectively any more valid as the cause of the 'sexual(?) revolution' et al of the 60's rather it is a 'by product' of a humane conciousness of the time... which in turn sees it's origins as a release from 'war effort' mentality. The truth is all the sexual variations weren't 'secret' as such. Your perspective is limited by the influence of a 'Christian' American (white) culture. Which like all cultures see people as 'us and them' as a means of differentiation , correctness defining the 'comfort zone ' ( fight or flee threat instinct).

aimai, and others Sorry to 'offend'?You may not agree with me that's fine but resorting to Righties' tactics?i.e. When an more historically accurate alternative is put , resort to obscenity, insult and oh yes let's not forget being "offended". I might note that I didn't insult or attack you personally just what you said both here and on your site . i.e. starting your response with “Feminism and the 60's sub culture had a major ….”that unqualified ( non caveated) statement is factually wrong. If the 70's feminist movement achieved anything it was because it stood on the shoulders of giants and circumstances . Those giants ranged from 1700 Quaker reformers in England they banned child labor, slavery , prison reform and women's rights. The Jamaican Black Creole Mary Jane Seacole , England's Elizabeth Nightingale trail blazers. England's Emily Pankhurst her suffragettes meanwhile back at the ranch American women were campaigning against booze , lascivious women, licentious behaviour including homosexuality and paedophilia wasn't discussed.

And was it the “feminism movement” as we understand today that gave women the constitutional right to vote in New Zealand and later in Australia ? A universal 'right' to vote still isn't in the US constitution today. Hence every time a black group are discriminated on a vote they have to raise in costly litigation state by state .

Then there was the 1930 in Germany and France where sexual preferences and women's problems were openly discussed . Or maybe those bastions of US male dominance in the 1930's Unions … they were campaigning for social security education and equal pay and ran classes in literature etc for the average women.

It wasn't feminism that drafted women during WW2 to do men's work giving them associated freedoms int was clearly circumstance. And of course after the war was won, all these women simply forgot all these wins/rights and waited for the 1970's feminist movement.

As for 60's subculture even they have historic backgrounding the Beatnik sub Culture was huge in the late 1940- mid 1950's The more mainstream late 50's “The ban the bomb movement” don't underestimate or the rebellion of the Rock and Roll sub culture and the demand for 'personal freedom' i.e. Elvis' hips ?

The Haight and Ashbury ' flower power' came and went in one summer . It morphed into the “HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT”, Black militancy of Black power had an impact too? We protested against conscription and the Vietnam war. You remember them don't you ? I do , I was there. I'd put in that HUMAN RIGHTS had a wide resonance look at MLK's speeches they were subtexted ACCORDINGLY. It's sheer new age American populist thinking (of the facebook generation) that attribute such power to the American 70's feminist movement much less some vague subculture of the sixties . In fact it was all this background pressure that spawned “the feminist movement”. It was/ is a splinter sub group that focuses on a minority of women. Not all women *really * (as opposed to nominal) support 70's style feminism. Those that don't often fear of what they see as the conclusions ( a threat to what they know and therefore feel comfortable with.) e.g. right to lifers anti gay et al.

I've heard female directors put their personal interests before promoting another female because “she may use her sex appeal to influence male board members”. Now tell me that isn't stereotyping ? The truth was they also feared the candidate wouldn't support the queen bee's tilt at chairmanship.

The issues are important not some 'movement'. Movement like other ideologies are all fundamentally flawed and open to excesses. The shtick comment is beneath you.Prove me wrong with facts by all means